Agents of Vect

Long Story short: What do you think about AoV? Is it to strong, to expensive, not fun to play against? The current BolS article had me thinking what the lesser races think of us

It's definitely not fun to play against - things in games which prevent you from doing something you wanted to almost never are.

I'm not entirely sold on how much of an effect it's having on the flow of games outside of the psychological one, but getting FAQed to being only once per turn or round is very likely. Even once per game wouldn't surprise me too much.

It is really good, but even having ~15-17 CP in 2000 points, I'm considering a Flayed Skull battalion instead of Black Heart. I run all three subfactions, so I wouldn't have AoV.

It is good. Really good. But I think Flayed Skull is overall better...

AoV is a brilliant psychological tool. It's also really awful to play against - It ruins the 'Fun and diversity' which the stratagems are supposed to provide to 8th edition.

It makes unique combinations which maximise the use of particular stratagems useless, in the competitive scene, this really mixes things up. But it really sucks for casual environments where people might want to play those stratagem heavy lists.

I would be fine with it being once per game, even keeping the unreliability it currently has. This then means the opponent can try and draw it out of you on something that is perhaps not the most optimal thing to use it on. The other change I would like to see is it being made non Kabal specific as all Archon's should be masters of this type of behaviour and this would encourage more list diversity.

A fluffy Black Heart specific strategem could then be an Alpha Legion style "psych, that's not actually my warlord" ability.

That BoLS article was basically "I facerolled 3 opponents but couldn't do it to 2 others so AoV is clearly unfair".

BoLS is pathetic excuse for a blogsite tbh. All their articles follow this trend.

I will definitely agree AoV isn't especially fun to have played on you in a casual setting, but in a competitive setting, it is fair IMO.
As to whether it is too good at the moment, I haven't played enough games with my DE army so far to say either way from our side, but I've yet to really complain when it has been pulled against me.

Some stratagems in 8e are game changing. AoV is the counter to that and I think it's actually good for the game.

yeah that article was pretty bland
AoV is very powerful and makes dark eldar really unique in 8th edition. Some criticism sounds more like whining imho. I almost feel like the one point that always comes up is that the opponents pre battle plan doesnt work and it makes a unit useless, but that can happen to every army:grey knights can run into a gaunt spam army, tau can (will) lose against alaitoc.

but hey thats what we're here for: whining and spending unreasonable amounts of money on plastic toy soldiers

I think the Stratagem/CP game as a whole is a little new to everyone, and weaker players and less thoughtful contributors default to whining and teeth sucking instead of actually sharpening their wits and figuring out what the workarounds are.

I'm constantly shocked at what an unhealthy attitude some of the 'competitive' bloggers in the scene hold to...authors sharing content on competitive strategies and theories in other gaming scenes hold themselves and are held to a far more serious standard - don't waste my time with an op-ed blaming me for crap in your cornflakes because you couldn't hack it on the table.

It's a strong Stratagem.

Strong players scratch their head and figure out.

Salt can't help anyone with anything.

People build entire lists around stratagems and the benefits they provide, and they haven't figured out they can't do that any more with AoV and in the meantime, they bitch and moan.

If your entire winning strategy was built around the strength of one unit shooting twice or your assault unit getting across the board on turn 1, you were never a competitive player, you just brought a really strong list. Time to make some changes.

But people would rather scream for nerfs than face the reality of their own shortcomings.

Chippen wrote:

People build entire lists around stratagems and the benefits they provide, and they haven't figured out they can't do that any more with AoV and in the meantime, they bitch and moan.

It seems to be the same with our vehicles. They're better than most other vehicles against Lascannons and such (relative to their cost), but much worse against Heavy Bolters, Autocannons, Assault Cannons and the like.

However, rather than swapping out some Lascannons for those weapons, it seems a lot of people just want to spam Lascannons and moan when it doesn't work well against us.

Just read the article and have to agree with a few others who have already pointed out that it reads like the author ‘s real problem with AoV is that it prevented him from face-stomping DE opponents in the manner to which he became accustomed to face-stomping his other opponents at the tourney. The whole thing is just a mountain of salt dressed up as Very Serious Concern for Both Player’s Enjoyment of The Game. I would love to read a rebuttal from his non-DE opponents at the tourney describing how much they enjoyed getting rolled over by the author, with no way to stop his stratagems.

AoV just prevents bad players from relying on the same trick over and over. Once people realize you have it in your back pocket you have to plan your strategies more. Think of 7th's psychic phase, how you could roll people with Eldar and a huge pool of casting dice until you came across another Eldar player who also had a ton of denial dice. Suddenly you couldn't just throw 3 dice at any given power, you needed to use lots of dice per power and save them for the important ones. I won't forget the look on my opponent's face when he threw his wad at denying my guide on a unit of scatbikes only for me to then doom his wraithknight with 3 units of warp spiders standing next to it. Agents of Vect is the same exact thing.

edit: Also screw Bell of Lost Souls and their stupid click-baity bull****.

The tears that flowed from that article tasted like sweet sweet nectar.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/06/40k-counterpoint-goatboy-is-wrong-agents-of-vect-is-perfect.html
We got our wish ... Came across this as a counter-point to the whining about AoV being to powerful and basically says they were wrong and AoV rocks

very nice

Since I have absolutely no faith in GW's ability to show moderation, I think AoV/DE as a whole are going to get hit so hard with a nerf hammer that the faction will get close to resembling its 6th/7th level of power. Just reading the comments that come up any time AoV or DE themselves are mentioned makes it very clear that people are so strongly against them, that I fear GW will fold to the whining.

I think that AoV is super good for the game. It's really nice to have something that adds risk to what is otherwise a totally risk-free part of the game.
I also really don't want them to just add another strat for 'Imperium' keyword armies that just does the same thing. We already have enough issues with homogenisation without stratagems being given to everyone.

Is it alright to say that BoLS used his Scape-Goatboy stratagem to change his mind?

I've actually had this argument with a few people. I think that most armies right now have game-changing Stratagems. Our Game-changing Stratagem just happens to be a stratagem that cancels other stratagems. Once-per-player turn might be appropriate...maybe once per game round. I dont think it needs to be once-per-game though. It already has built-in balancing. Its not reliable (you are usually saving your reroll for it just in case), its not CP efficient (costs 3), and it mostly puts you behind in CP (you're spending 3, and your opponent usually gets his command points back)

That being said, I generally dont take it in friendly games...like people pointed out, it's just not friendly.

BOLS is the buzzfeed of 40k, utterly useless and vapid garbage.

withershadow wrote:

BOLS is the buzzfeed of 40k, utterly useless and vapid garbage.

Looks like we finally agree on something.

If someone lose a game because a DE plays a AoV, it's just his fault.

Sincerely, my intention is not insult anyone, but if I build a list full antivehicle and play against a list full infantery, is stupid proclaim that the infatery is overpowerfull and need a nerf. The same happens with AoV. If I build a list that is absolutly based on the use of a specific stratagem and is countered by AoV, is just my fault.

The meta changes with every release, so players must adapt. All the complains about AoV are cry of people that prefer the previous meta where they can win without play the game, just building a list. Do you want continue playing the same list even knowing that AoV exist? Ok, do it and take the risk, but stop crying when you face it, beacause you already know about that posibility.

AoV it's and expensive stratagem, has a cost of 3CP and the kidnap of a whole detachment by a specific kabal just to have the posibility of evade a lose agaisnt a specific stratagems.

Overpowerfull stratagem that need a nerf? my ass.

I would honestly not have much heartburn if they moved it to once per turn. Honestly, at 3 CP, most of us aren't spamming it anyway. I honestly don't use it that often and just have it in my back pocket waiting on my opponent to use a strategem that I really don't want to have happen. I think the MOST I've used it in 1 game is twice. So even if they moved it to once per game, I wouldn't care too much.

merse24 wrote:

I would honestly not have much heartburn if they moved it to once per turn. Honestly, at 3 CP, most of us aren't spamming it anyway. I honestly don't use it that often and just have it in my back pocket waiting on my opponent to use a strategem that I really don't want to have happen. I think the MOST I've used it in 1 game is twice. So even if they moved it to once per game, I wouldn't care too much.

Yeah, I don't think I'd be massively against it being once per game? It'd mean that it'd absolutely need to be saved to shutdown game-winning strats, and it'd make it much easier for opponents to bait out.